Saturday, July 17, 2004
Denver's Transit Agency Charged with Violating State Campaign Laws
In a July 10 editorial, the Rocky Mountain News, Denver's afternoon paper, criticized RTD for distributing a brochure boosting FasTracks in violation of Colorado laws forbidding government agencies from taking positions on ballot measures.
On July 17, RTD board chair Bill Elfenbein responded that RTD was within its rights to publish the brochure because it did not specifically ask voters to vote for the measure.
But the Rocky responds in a new editorial saying that the law is clear: It is not enough to not say "vote yes"; agency's must present both sides. RTD has failed to do that. "FasTracks, we are told without hint of a contrary view," says the paper, "will bring us safer, more reliable transportation, cleaner air, even less stress, and create jobs galore, resulting in an overall improvement in the quality of our bereft lives." Since these are all disputed claims, the paper concludes, RTD has violated state laws.
On July 17, RTD board chair Bill Elfenbein responded that RTD was within its rights to publish the brochure because it did not specifically ask voters to vote for the measure.
But the Rocky responds in a new editorial saying that the law is clear: It is not enough to not say "vote yes"; agency's must present both sides. RTD has failed to do that. "FasTracks, we are told without hint of a contrary view," says the paper, "will bring us safer, more reliable transportation, cleaner air, even less stress, and create jobs galore, resulting in an overall improvement in the quality of our bereft lives." Since these are all disputed claims, the paper concludes, RTD has violated state laws.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Fighting Smart Growth in Hawaii
Sierra Club Opposes BART to San Jose
The San Francisco Bay Chapter and Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club has written a letter to U.S. Representative Ellen Tauscher opposing the extension of BART rail transit from Fremont to San Jose. The Club also opposes a shorter extension to Warm Springs that has been proposed by BART.
San Jose and the region's transit agency, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), wanted a BART line to give commuters an alternative. But the $5 billion cost would sink the VTA, which is already burdened by debt and has made huge cutbacks to transit service in order to keep from defaulting on bonds sold to build rail lines.
The letter refers to a Santa Clara County grand jury report that recommended against BART and that also urged that VTA's board be replaced. The letter also notes that BART's line to the San Francisco Airport has been a failure. The Sierra Club still supports other rail service, such as commuter trains that now connect San Jose and San Francisco.
San Jose and the region's transit agency, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), wanted a BART line to give commuters an alternative. But the $5 billion cost would sink the VTA, which is already burdened by debt and has made huge cutbacks to transit service in order to keep from defaulting on bonds sold to build rail lines.
The letter refers to a Santa Clara County grand jury report that recommended against BART and that also urged that VTA's board be replaced. The letter also notes that BART's line to the San Francisco Airport has been a failure. The Sierra Club still supports other rail service, such as commuter trains that now connect San Jose and San Francisco.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
$36.3 million added to light-rail pot
Clackamas County has tentatively approved $36.3 million to help design and build a light-rail line along Interstate 205. This is the same line that the voters said no to.
Clackamas County has tentatively approved $36.3 million to help design and build a light-rail line along Interstate 205. This is the same line that the voters said no to.
No Growth Group Gives Up
Alternatives to Growth Oregon, a no-growth group, is shutting its doors after about seven years. Andy Kerr, who spoke on behalf of the group at the American Dream Coalition conference in April, says the group has run out of money.
The group began in 1997 when Kerr and his associates held a no-growth conference in Portland that was so popular they had to turn people away. The group claimed 1,000 dues-paying members. But now Kerr says the group's goal of stopping Oregon growth "was not going to be met, at least in the short run."
In the last legislature, the group tried to make it possible for cities to charge developers for the cost of schools. Under current Oregon law, cities can assess special development charges for water, sewer, and certain other capital costs, but not schools. The bill failed.
While free marketeers agree with the no-growthers that growth should not be subsidized, it isn't clear that schools are being subsidized. Some residential areas don't pay enough taxes to cover the costs of schools, but that is true of both new and existing residential areas. The difference is paid by commercial areas, whose taxes also go for schools but which send few or no children to those schools. Unless you think commercial tax rates should be reduced, there are really no school subsidies.
Still, it is sad to see Alternatives to Growth Oregon disappear because in many respects they presented a saner view than the dominant planning paradigm in Oregon.
The group began in 1997 when Kerr and his associates held a no-growth conference in Portland that was so popular they had to turn people away. The group claimed 1,000 dues-paying members. But now Kerr says the group's goal of stopping Oregon growth "was not going to be met, at least in the short run."
In the last legislature, the group tried to make it possible for cities to charge developers for the cost of schools. Under current Oregon law, cities can assess special development charges for water, sewer, and certain other capital costs, but not schools. The bill failed.
While free marketeers agree with the no-growthers that growth should not be subsidized, it isn't clear that schools are being subsidized. Some residential areas don't pay enough taxes to cover the costs of schools, but that is true of both new and existing residential areas. The difference is paid by commercial areas, whose taxes also go for schools but which send few or no children to those schools. Unless you think commercial tax rates should be reduced, there are really no school subsidies.
Still, it is sad to see Alternatives to Growth Oregon disappear because in many respects they presented a saner view than the dominant planning paradigm in Oregon.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Federal Reserve Bank Meeting in St. Louis
Registration Form: St. Louis Fed Light Rail Seminar
The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank will be holding a meeting on its light rail report on August 10. If you happen to be in the St. Louis area on that date would urge you to come to the meeting.
The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank will be holding a meeting on its light rail report on August 10. If you happen to be in the St. Louis area on that date would urge you to come to the meeting.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Less openspaces could help housing prices in Bay Area
Sunday, July 11, 2004
FAQs: Why Not Just Buy Them Cars?
Frequently Asked Questions
Projected Costs
Heartland Institute Op-Ed
There are at least two related reasons to consider providing automobiles to low-income transit riders. The most important is introduced above --- that automobility improves employment opportunities and the prospects for entry into the economic mainstream for low-income households. But first, there is the issue of transit's exorbitant costs.
There is a crass implication is that low-income citizens should be denied opportunity to keep traffic congestion from getting worse. I could not disagree more strongly with this. If more traffic congestion is the price of greater opportunity, then so be it. Moreover, as indicated above, comparatively little additional highway investment would be needed.
Projected Costs
Heartland Institute Op-Ed
There are at least two related reasons to consider providing automobiles to low-income transit riders. The most important is introduced above --- that automobility improves employment opportunities and the prospects for entry into the economic mainstream for low-income households. But first, there is the issue of transit's exorbitant costs.
There is a crass implication is that low-income citizens should be denied opportunity to keep traffic congestion from getting worse. I could not disagree more strongly with this. If more traffic congestion is the price of greater opportunity, then so be it. Moreover, as indicated above, comparatively little additional highway investment would be needed.
